Search

On Compliance of Section 74 (2) of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the second part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code does not comply with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be void as from May 2010.

On Compliance of the Words “Not Later Than Within 60 Days” of Section 32(3) of Law On the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the words “not later than within 60 days” of the third part of Section 32 of the Law “On Prevention of Laundering of the Proceeds from Crime and Financing of Terrorism” does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared void as from 1 January 2010.

On Compliance of the Words “Dekšāres Parish” of Para 95 of Chapter II of the Appendix of 4 September 2007 Cabinet Regulations No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 5 of the Charter of Local Self-Government of 15 October 1985 and the First and the Fourth Part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform

On Compliance of 21 January 1997 Cabinet Regulations No. 46 “Regulations Regarding Government Agreements” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First, Sixth and Tenth Part of Section 10 of the State Administration Structure Law

On Compliance of the Words “Dekšāres Parish” of Para 95 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the 4 September 2007 Cabinet Regulations No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial division of Local Governments” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Words "Within Two Years Calculated from the Day when They Have Found out about the Circumstances that Preclude Paternity" of Section 156(2) of the Civil Law with Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of the European Convention of the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock

Constitutional Court held that the words “within two years calculated from the day when they have found out about the circumstances that preclude paternity” of the second part of Section 156 of the Civil Law comply with Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Words "One Hour Long" and "in the Presence of a Representative of an Investigation Prison Administration" of Para 6 of Section 13 of Law On the Procedures for Holding under Arrest with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the words “one hour long” of Item 6 of the first part of Section 13 of the Law "On Procedures for Keeping in Custody” insofar as they provide for the maximum time of short visits and the words “at presence of a representative of an investigation prison administration” of Item 6 of the first part of Section 13 of the same Law insofar as they do not provide for individual assessment of a particular case, do not comply with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be invalid as from 1 December 2009.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 1 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 2 of Law On National Referendums and Legislative Initiative "with Article 6, Article 8 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 of the Law "On National Referendums and Legislative Initiative" with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the second part of Section 22 of the Law "On National Referendums and Initiation of Legislation” complies with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Order No 2-02/299 of 10 June 2008 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Annulment of the Binding Regulations No. 8 of the Jūrmala City Council of 28 April 2004 "Amendments to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City" and Annulment of the Part of Binding Regulations No. 19 of 12 July 2007 "On Confirmation of the Amendments, Graphical Part, Land Use and Construction Regulations to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City"" with Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia, the First, Third and Fifth Part of Section 10 of State Administration Structure Law and the Second Part of Section 7.1 of Spatial Planning Law

On Compliance of the Binding Regulations No. 8 of the Jūrmala City Council of 28 April 2004 "Amendments to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City" and the Binding Regulations No. 19 of 12 July 2007 "On Confirmation of the Amendments, Graphical Part insofar as It Concerns the Territory in Dzintari between the Meža Boulevard, Edingurgas Boulevard, Indras Street and Krišjāņa Barona Street , Land Use and Building Regulations to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City"" with Article 1 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of the Binding Regulations No. 37 of the Jūrmala City Council of 30 August 2007 “On Confirmation of the Graphical part, Land Use and Building Regulations of the Detailed Plan of the Territory in Dzintari between the Meža Boulevard, Edingurgas Boulevard, Indras Street and Krišjāņa Barona Street” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 100.1 of 31 October 2006 Cabinet Regulations No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court Law held that the Section 100 and Section 100.1 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet Regulations No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenses toward the Purchase of Medical Products and Medical Devices for the Out-Patient Care” comply with Article 91 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Words “Apartment Houses” of Section 12(2) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia and Para 7 of the Transitional Provisions Thereof, and the First Sentence of Section 54(2) of Law On Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment House”, and Para 40 of the Transitional Provisions Thereof with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the words “apartment eesidential houses” of the second part of Section 12 of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” and Para 7 of the Transitional Provisions thereof insofar as the restrictions of the lease payment apply to the land under residential aparment houses, and the first sentence of the second part of Section 54 of the Law “On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses”, and Para 40 of the Transitional Provisions thereof do not comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and are invalid as from 1 November 2009.

On Compliance of the Law "On Lisbon Agreement Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community" with Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Law “On the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty of European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community” has been adopted in conformity with the procedures established in the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and consequently complies with the first part of Article 101 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Word “Lease"” Used in Section 12(3) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia and the First and Second Part of Section 54 of Law On Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Buildings with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Word “Norm” Used in the Third Part of Section 12 of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” and the First and Second Part of Section 54 of the Law “On Apartment House Privatization” complies with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Words "Skrīveri Parish" of Para 2, the Words "Bēne Parish" of Para 8, the Words "Baltinava Parish" of Para 12, the Words "Code Parish", "Gailīši Parish", "Īslīce Parish", "Mežotne Parish" and "Vecsaule Parish" of Para 13, the Words "Kauguri Parish" of Para 14, the Words "Glūda Parish" and "Līvbērze Parish" of Para 35, the Words "Priekuļi Parish" of Para 65, the Words "Malta Parish" of Para 66, the Words "Allaži Parish" of Para 77, the Words "Ģibuļi Parish", "Lībagi Parish" and "Strazde Parish" of Para 82, the Words "Pūre Parish" of Para 84, the Words "Kocēni Parish" of Para 87 and the Words "Tārgale Parish" of Para 92 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2008-25-03

On the Words "Lapmežciems Parish" of Para 3.15 and Para 25 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2008-25-03

On Compliance of the Words "Brīvzemnieki Parish" of Para 5 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2008-25-03

On Compliance of the Words "Amata Parish" and "Drabeši Parish" of Paea 18 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2008-25-03

On Compliance of the Words "Sigulda City", "Sigulda Parish" and "More Parish" of Paea 77 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2008-25-03